To: LindyBill who wrote (47874 ) 9/29/2002 5:55:44 AM From: Bilow Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500 Hi LindyBill; Re: "How many US cities would have to be destroyed before you would agree to negotiations. " Re: "But, in spite of all of the above, lets suppose that Al Q, or someone else got one and set it off in NYC. Killed millions. What to do? Do we roll over and beg? Of course not! " Fortunately, you don't run the country. If you did, and terrorists started blowing up cities, I bet you'd change your mind. If you didn't, I'd leave the country, because I don't want to die for your useless platitudes. You haven't even asked what the terrorists would be negotiating for. Perhaps I should ask the question under the assumption that the terrorists were animal rights activists. What they want is for all animal testing of make-up products using animals must stop. Would you still insist on letting them blow up every city in the country, LOL. Or maybe what they want is for a one-hour program to be broadcast on national TV giving their side of the story on how Princess Di was murdered by the CIA, LOL. Re: "One good thing about them is that they are complicated. You don't put one together in your garage. " Yes, it takes 1945 technology. Russia couldn't do it in until a few years later, LOL. Re: "The next point is that as bad as we were at doing something about Bin Ladin, we are pretty good at tracking down nuclear stuff. We have spent Billions since the Soviets collapsed keeping track of the the stuff. " Then why are we reading in the paper about 33 pounds of weapons grade uranium being found in a taxi, LOL. Re: "Lets pull back to our borders and hope no one tries to hurt us! Is this going to save us? Of course not! They would be even more eager to come after us. All we can do is stand and fight, and hope we get them before they get us. " Interesting theory, but it doesn't jive with much of history. We pulled out of Vietnam but the Communists didn't take over San Francisco. France pulled out of Algeria, but they didn't lose their country to Moslems (at least right away, LOL). No, the basic fact is that humans are territorial, and are far more interested in their own territory than in a territory far away. If it were the case that they were going to "come after us", then that would be rather suicidal on their part because we have far better nukes than they'll ever have (at least for the next 20 years or so), and plenty of productive capacity to make more. Re: "911 may end up being a blessing, if it acts as a wake-up call to this country that we must defend ourselves against these things. Our best bet is to play "Offense," not "Defense." " I've found it hilarious, in a sad way, that so many neocons are convinced that they can win by being more warlike than previous administrations were. They are failing to recognize that this is a Democracy, and the majority rules. The majority of the population is not nearly as warlike as the neocons, and if the neocons go off and get us involved in a stupid war, the opinion of the majority of the population will be (as it has been in the past) to extract us from it when the pain exceeds the prize. In this case the prize is the ability to influence events in the Middle East, and is of doubtful utility, so the pain required is a hell of a lot smaller than nuking all our cities, LOL. If we did get involved in such a long-run pissing match the result would be identical to Vietnam. I (and many people like me) who have never voted anything other than Republican my whole life, will (temporarily) switch parties to Democrat. The resulting electoral disaster will bring the Republicans back to their senses. -- Carl P.S. My favorite part of your post is "So far, so good ", which is the punch line to the old joke about what the guy who jumped out of the building said when he passed the 50th floor on the way down. With the WTC in mind, no LOL.